DILLON JAMES GRESHAM
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
When a defendant's initial Rule 3.850 motion is legally insufficient, the trial court abuses its discretion by denying it without allowing at least one opportunity to amend.
[1] When a defendant's initial Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion is determined to be legally insufficient, the trial court abuses its discretion by summarily denying it…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“when a defendant's initial rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief is determined to be legally insufficient for failure to meet either the rule's or other pleading requirements, the trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to allow the defendant at least one opportunity to amend the motion”
Court's statement of the applicable legal standard from Spera v. State
Dillon James Gresham appealed the trial court's summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion. In ground six, Gresham alleged a Giglio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Opportunity To Amend cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Dillon James Gresham, appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the summary denial of Appellant’s motion, except as to ground six. In ground six of the motion, Appellant claims that the State committed a Giglio 1 violation by introducing false testimony during his trial which helped secure his conviction. The trial court denied this claim, reasoning that Appellant alleged merely conclusory allegations and failed to state a legally valid claim. We agree that the claim is deficient, but Appellant did not receive an opportunity to amend. We therefore reverse for the trial court to give Appellant an opportunity to amend this claim, if he can do so in good faith. See Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 762 (Fla. 2007) (holding that when a defendant’s initial rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief is determined to be legally insufficient for failure to meet either the rule’s or other pleading requirements, the trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to allow the defendant at least one opportunity to amend the motion); Howard v. State, 336 So. 3d 391 (5th DCA 2022).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
HARRIS, BOATWRIGHT, and KILBANE, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
1 Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dillon James Gresham v. State, 336 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 2026)
-
Bunch v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)
-
Dillon James Gresham v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972)
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Dillon James Gresham v. State, 336 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 2026)